Friday, July 10, 2015

An amazing feature of near-death experiences is that they are much the same no matter the religion or culture.

In one study of 1,000 cases in India and America, researchers found that when Indians were close to death, they told of encountering messengers and religious figures, much the same as Americans report. One difference: residents of India did not report seeing deceased loved ones as much as did Americans.

Another difference: in places such as Thailand,those who crossed over to the other side did not experience eternity as quite as pleasant as have Westerners. In Buddhism, the person who has such an experience is called a "delog."

"There were both similarities and differences between Western and Thai near-death experiences," says a nurse named Dr. Penny Santori in a book called The Wisdom of Near-Death Experiences. "The tunnel was absent in Thai near-death experiences, as were feelings of bliss and ecstasy. Thai near-death experiences were mainly distressing in nature and depicted scenes of hell and torture. The dying person was forced to observe the tortures but did not experience them. There was only one case of an encounter with Heaven [in ten studied]."

Of course, the main religious difference, between the two, by and large, is that Americans are predominately Christian; Thailand is chiefly Buddhist (not to besmirch Buddhism, but to report on the result of one study).

Some of it comes down to what is expected: The afterlife is presented initially in a way that the person in transition understands. This may account for why those in Eastern or Muslim countries sometimes report a meeting with famous Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic figures.

In Tibet -- also largely Buddhist -- it is common for those who "die" to report that they were "taken to the Lord of Death and guided through hell, where they witness the torture of other sinful people. These people ask the person to convey messages to their families, asking them to perform rituals to absolve their suffering and urge others to live in a moralistic way." This sounds a bit like praying for the deceased in purgatory.

Another author, Nancy Bush, whose equally and perhaps even more fascinating book, Dancing Past the Dark, Distressing Near-Death Experiences, notes that, "One delog account from the 17th-century included descriptions of terrifying divinities of yellow, red, and green, a bridge over an ocean of fire, and tied-up victims being beaten for having eaten meat. Then she was taken to meet Yama, the terrible Lord of Death.

“Protected by her personal divinity, she entered his palace and trembled as she saw his ugly, red face, wide-eyed and fanged. Wearing a tiger skin, skulls, and ﬂames, he held the fateful mirror of existence, a sword, and water. His frightening voice rumbled like a thousand dragons.

"He was attended by numerous ugly, animal-headed acolytes and a nasty, little, black demon holding black pebbles signifying the sinful deeds of each poor person to be judged. But a white deity held white pebbles that would weigh against the black deeds. This vast army of beasts was chanting 'execute! execute!' or whacking off the heads of the weeping victims.

“In typical accounts of delogs, as young persons they have been gravely ill and seem to be dead to those grieving around them. But instead, they later report, they had risen up above their bodies, which then they did not recognize as their own. Next these persons’ dazed souls enter into a raucous hereafter, guided by their personal deity. They are taken to meet the horrifying Lord of Death himself.

"They are led on a shocking tour of Hell, where they see numerous condemned souls miserably suffering punishments beﬁtting their sins, such as the [Buddhist] nun who hears the unending cries of her own baby whom she murdered. The anguished sinners send urgent messages back to the living, begging family to do rituals to aid in their salvation and exhorting others to live an ethical life. The astonished travelers meet deceased parents and travel to paradise.

"Returning to the throne of the Lord of Death, they observe the dreadful judgment of souls with a bridge, a scale, or a mirror. They themselves are judged and given a message to send back. Their consciousnesses return to their bodies on earth. They deliver the various messages and exhort all to practice their Tibetan Buddhist religion faithfully."

Makes you think!

In China, a survey of 120 deathbed visions showed -- again -- similarities and differences.

In one account a Buddhist monk had a pleasant encounter whereby Buddha placed him in the palm of his hand and the light spread throughout the universe. Most interesting: a century ago a Confucian scholar who'd had just two lessons on the Christian faith "reported walking with Jesus to gates of pearl which were opened by angels that let them in," writes Santori. "She saw beautifully colored houses and walked with Jesus along golden streets. She saw thousands of angels encircling a throne on which the heavenly Father sat and He told her that she may go back for a while but must return on the twelfth of the month. A few days passed and on the twelfth of the month she dressed in her funeral clothes, lay down on the bed, and died." When Jesus is missing, it is precarious (to use understatement).

In Japan, many accounts include the upside of a temple gate and pleasant feelings; beautiful flowers are a prominent feature.

Some are sent back by relatives, as in so many Western accounts.

One researcher who interviewed seventeen patients found that nine had no memories, but eight who "died and returned" recalled rivers or ponds; of those eight, five were unpleasant. In one case a man who had been pronounced dead and sent to the mortuary, where he later came to, described a journey to his new house that was still in the process of construction. His account is similar to the one in China.

"He was told to go back and that it would be ready for him in a month's time," writes Bush.

Joseph Shaw, a traditionalist, who supports and teaches the new ecclesiology continues his propaganda on the Traditional Latin Mass and Pope Francis. As a professor of theology at Oxford he does not have the freedom to teach the old ecclesiology without Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's irrational inference. Since he has a young family to support he has to teach the new ecclesiology based on Marchetti's irrational premise and inference. This is approved by Pope Francis.

Without the irrationality used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II no priest is being allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass.Joseph Shaw chairman of the Latin Mass Society does not mention this in another of his window dressing, show piece reports in the liberal Catholic publication the Catholic Herald (England).

He writes 'Francis is confounding those who presented him as an enemy of traditionalism. The movement is actually flourishing thanks to his ‘live and let live’ attitude'. Shaw does not say that the let and and let live attitude is restricted to only those who discard the old ecclesiology. It is a live and let live attitude only when it is the old rite with the new ecclesiology.

If a Catholic priest in England were to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with Vatican Council II he would get the same treatment as the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.

Fr.Serafina Lanzetta formerly with the Franciscans of the Immaculate now has a parish in England, but without pastoral rights, only because he has conformed.

He has chosen to interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire being exceptions.This was the inference of Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and it was incorporated wrongly into Vatican Council II by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits.

Why did they have to mention being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) along with orthodox passages ? It was to accomodate the error which came from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.It was approved by Pope Pius XII.

Why did they have to mention 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR3) or 'seeds of the word'(AG 11) as means of salvation? It is because of the error in 1949 which infers there is known salvation outside the Church and all do not need to be formal members of the Church in the present times.This is the new theology, it is based on their being known salvation outside the Church, all not needing 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). This is the new ecclesiology it is a rejection of Feeneyism with an irrational premise ( salvation with the baptism of desire etc are personally known in the present times) and irrational inference( since they are known BOD, BOB, I.I. refer to known exceptions to the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

This is the irrationality Joseph Shaw teaches as a Catholic with the approval of the liberal Catholic bishops in England. So he is given the teaching permission (mandatum) by the local bishop to teach theology since he has compromised the Faith with Marchetti's irrationality.

Now on a big scale this is being done by traditionalist priests. I can think of Mons.Ignacio Barreiro and Fr.Joseph Kramer FSSP in Rome.They would offer the Traditional Latin Mass with the new ecclesiology which comes from the pontificate of Pope Pius XII and is approved by the political Left.They offer Holy Mass without Pope Francis' 'triumphalism'.This is approved by the Vatican.Since the ecclesiology at all rites and forms of Holy Mass is the same- liberal!

Joseph Shaw would not say that all need to formally enter the Church for salvation in Britain. This would be the old ecclesiology.Instead he would say that there are exceptions. This is the new ecclesiology.

Exclusivist ecclesiology?The new theology is based on being able to see the dead. Remove the premise, which is, "I can see the dead on earth".We then have the old ecclesiology, the exclusivist ecclesiology. The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is exclusivist. Since it affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are not known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. We are left with the old ecclesiology.Who agrees with you?

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors